Stop Press! NFFO, SFF and CFPO reaction to Brexit Transition arrangements.

After agreeing on the Brexit transition arrangements there will be many fishermen up and down the length of the UK who find it hard to see what David Davis has to smile about!

Cornwall Fish Producers Organisation's considered response in light of the news does nothing to gladden the hearts of south west fishermen who, like fishermen the length and breadth of the UK signed up for Brexit because Michael Gove, Fisheries Minister and MP for Camborne Redruth, George Eustice and other Tory MPs led us to believe that they would, "Take back control"

“We are still trying to obtain the full picture of what has been or may have been agreed in Brussels. However, on the face of it, it appears that the betrayal that was feared by many has occurred, status quo on fisheries is to be maintained during transition.

Even though the UK is leaving EU and CFP at end of March 2019 the UK Government thinks it is OK to hand back fisheries management to the EU straight away - UK fishermen will still in effect be managed by the discredited CFP and EU regulations until the end of 2021 at the earliest. The danger with agreeing to the EU’s terms is that we would be a coastal state in name only for that period.

To make matters even worse the UK has had to surrendered its vote and its place at the EU negotiating table, a condescending line that UK is to be allowed consultation rights in fisheries decision-making and when EU engages in international fora and negotiations has been cynically inserted to allow some attempt at justification.

Ultimately the fear is that if this approach is adopted i.e. making concessions as part of transitional arrangements it can be expected that similar pressures (and outcomes) will apply when it comes to negotiations later this year on the UK’s long term relationship with the EU. The EU will want to maintain the asymmetric and exploitative relationship that currently exists –it appears that the EU has already secured this for the duration of the transition period without much effort or political capital expended!

Mr. Gove and Mr. Eustice have some explaining to do to fishermen around the UK given the expectations they had raised.”

(Statement from the CFPO March 19th 2018)

Then we have;

Bertie Armstrong, CEO of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation:

‘Far short of an acceptable deal’ – SFF on interim Brexit agreement
Reacting to the agreement for fishing during the implementation period, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation Bertie Armstrong said:

“This falls far short of an acceptable deal. We will leave the EU and leave the CFP, but hand back sovereignty over our seas a few seconds later. Our fishing communities’ fortunes will still be subject to the whim and largesse of the EU for another two years.

“Put simply, we do not trust them to look after us. So we issue this warning to the EU: be careful what you do or the consequences later will be severe. To our politicians we say this: some have tried to secure a better deal but our governments have let us down.

“As a consequence, we expect a written, cast iron guarantee that after the implementation period, sovereignty will mean sovereignty and we will not enter into any deal which gives any other nation or the EU continued rights of access or quota other than those negotiated as part of the annual Coastal States negotiations.”


Then we hear from the NFFO:

The NFFO assesses the recent developments in Brussels

1. We are still trying to obtain the full picture of what has been or may have been agreed in Brussels

2. There will be a lot of concern throughout the fishing industry about what seems to be emerging.

3. We were led to believe that the UK would be as an independent coastal state from March 2019. The Prime Minister told us that only a fortnight ago.

4. This timetable and perhaps much else has been conceded as part of the transition.

5. In fact, under international law the UK will be an independent coastal state from March. But we will immediately tie ourselves into an arrangement with the EU that is worse that we had before – as the UK will not have a seat at the table when the quotas are decided.

6. The UK is to be “consulted” by the EU on setting quotas during the transition period but it is not clear what this would mean:

⦁ Notional “cosmetic” consultation or

⦁ Meaningful participation amounting to agreement (like EU/Norway annual agreement which are styled as consultations)

7. In the meantime the UK’s asymmetrical relationship with the EU on fisheries continues.

8. The UK’s central problem with the CFP has been that EU vessels, in value terms takes 4 times as much out of UK waters as our vessels take out of EU waters. That imbalance – essentially an exploitative relationship - will continue during the transition.

9. The Prime Minister told us that UK would renegotiate quota shares and control access over who fishes in UK waters, and under what conditions. That promise is on hold now and may never materialise.

10. This is being presented as tactical concession that will not prejudice our longer term aims. But it has all the hallmarks of a capitulation.

11. The danger with agreeing to the EU’s terms is that we would be a coastal state in name only

12. But there is also danger in making concessions as part of transitional arrangements because similar pressures will apply when it comes to negotiations, later this year, on the UK’s long term relationship with the EU. The EU, not unnaturally will want to maintain the asymmetric and exploitative relationship that currently exists.

13. In the immediate future, sticking to the existing quota shares (relative stability) during the transition period will cause serious difficulties when the EU landing obligation when it comes fully into force on 1st January 2019.

UK’s Negotiating Position

⦁ UK as an independent coastal state
⦁ Rebalancing of quotas to reflect the resources in our waters
⦁ Control over who fishes in UK waters

EU Negotiating Position

• Status quota on quota shares and access arrangements
• UK has no voting rights during transition
• All CFP rules continue to apply (including new ones over which the UK has no say)

Just over two weeks ago (as mentioned by the NFFO) Teresa May and her ministers were predicting a very different outcome for the industry. This what the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House statement:

First Gove, now Teresa May says the words the fishing industry wants to hear in her Mansion House speech today as an icy wind blasts through the open doors of Newlyn fish market.

Fishing industry transcripts:

"The EU itself is rightly taking a tailored approach in what it is seeking with the UK. For example, on fisheries, the Commission has been clear that no precedents exist for the sort of access it wants from the UK.
We are also leaving the Common Fisheries Policy."

"The UK will regain control over our domestic fisheries management rules and access to our waters.But as part of our economic partnership we will want to continue to work together to manage shared stocks in a sustainable way and to agree reciprocal access to waters and a fairer allocation of fishing opportunities for the UK fishing industry. 

Annotated by Alex BarkerThis is an important promise for the Brexit supporting fishing community. The UK’s share of the catch in UK waters was set sometime in the early 1980s and has barely changed since. Should Britain press hard on this point, the EU may say it will restrict its ability to sell fish products into the EU market. And we will also want to ensure open markets for each other’s products. 

Just as our partnership in goods needs to be deeper than any other Free Trade Agreement, so in services we have the opportunity to break new ground with a broader agreement than ever before. 

We recognise that certain aspects of trade in services are intrinsically linked to the single market and therefore our market access in these areas will need to be different. But we should only allow new barriers to be introduced where absolutely necessary."

Time will tell if the industry has been traded off against much bigger trading assets - again. If ever there was a time for the industry to come together and take control to shape its future it is now.

CFPO BULLETIN NUMBER 2 (2018) AREA VII

BULLETIN NUMBER 2 (2018) AREA VII C.F.P.O. 


QUOTAS EFFECTIVE FROM 1st February 2018

C.F.P.O. Licenced Boats over 10 mtrs overall

ICES Area VIIa-k

• Plaice VII a 50 Kg per vessel per month 
• Plaice VII d,e 3 Tonne per vessel per month 
• Plaice VII f,g 250 Kg per vessel per month 
• Plaice VII h,j,k 50 Kg per vessel per month 
• Sole VII a 50 kg per vessel per month 
• Sole VII d 200 kg per vessel per month 
• Sole VII e 350 kg per vessel per month * 
• Sole VII f,g 1 Tonne per vessel per month 
• Sole VII h,j,k 250 Kg per vessel per month 
• Saithe VII 2 tonnes per vessel per month 
• Monk VII 4.5 Tonnes Live Weight (1500 Kg Tails)
• Megrim VII 4 Tonnes per vessel per month 
• Hake VII 11 Tonnes per vessel per month Beamers only: 5% by-catch in hake recovery (VII f,g & VII h) 
• Haddock VII a 50 kg per vessel per month 
• Haddock VII b-k 300 Kg per vessel per month 
• Pollock VII 10 Tonnes per vessel per month 
• Cod VII a 50 Kg per vessel per month (Contact C.F.P.O. office) 
• Cod VII d 100 Kg per vessel per month 
• Cod VII e-k 250 Kg per vessel per month 
• Whiting VII a 50 Kg per vessel per month 
• Whiting VII b-k 4 Tonnes per vessel per month 
• Nephrops VII By-catch only 
• Mackerel VII By-catch only (15% of catch on board – Trawlers) (200 Kg per vessel per month – Netters) 
• Horse Mackerel (Scad) VII 200 Kg per vessel per month 
• Herring VII e & f Any member (over or under 10m) wishing to target herring MUST contact this office before engaging in this fishery. 
• Ling VII 3 Tonnes 
• Spurdogs VII No Landings 
• Ray VII 12 Tonnes (ban on landing Skate) (See license variation for small-eyed ray restriction) 
• Porbeagle VII No Landings 

Any member intending to fish in the North Sea, or West of Scotland MUST contact this office for instructions. C.F.P.O. BOATS UNDER 10 MTRS. OVERALL – REFER TO LATEST DEFRA LICENCE VARIATION.

Cornish Fish Producers Organisation Ltd 
46 Fore St, Newlyn, Penzance, Cornwall. TR18 5JR

Tel (01736) 351050 
Fax (01736) 350632 

www.cfpo.org.uk 

cfpo@cfpo.org.uk

The Cornish Fish Producer's Organisation appeals directly to PM Theresa May

The #CFPO (Cornwall Fish Producers Organisation) has sent a direct appeal to Prime Minister Theresa May at a critical moment for #fishing in the #Brexit process. You can read what they had to say to her above. Keep up to date with the CFPO via their new website.

Fishing for a Future? Challenges and Opportunities Facing UK Fishing Communities Revealed at ‘UK Fishing Forum’

On 9 January 70 representatives from the fishing industry including fishermen, fish producers, policy makers and funders, attended an event at Fishmongers’ Hall organised by Seafarers UK and hosted by The Fishmongers’ Company. They were there to discuss the interim findings from a major new piece of research compiled by Cornwall Rural Community Charity and Rose Regeneration.

The ‘Fishing for a Future’ research is based on an analysis of 41 fishing ports around the UK. It involved an extensive survey of fishermen’s own views on the key issues impacting their lives as well as a survey of 70 health service providers in fishing communities. Many areas of need were identified, including: a lack of funding for simple port infrastructure and equipment; low workforce recruitment and retention; poor health amongst fishermen, with most suffering from a disability or long-term health problem; many fishing families facing financial difficulties, and the knock-on effects of a limited access to quota for the stability of fishermen’s personal circumstances.

1800 kg of bass accidentally caught by an inshore trawler on the day of the conference - value approx £21,000 - about to be thrown back overboard!

The ‘UK Fishing Forum 2018’ invited guests to quiz the report’s authors and other experts (see list below). Dave Cuthbert of the New Under 10m Fishermen’s Association, a panellist, said: ‘It isn’t fun to throw fish overboard and watch them drift away when you have a mortgage to pay. It exemplifies a broken system and highlights that small scale fishermen are hemmed in by regulation’. Griffin Carpenter, Senior Researcher at the New Economics Foundation felt that: ‘Fishing has been left out of the political system. Fishermen need coherent structures to give them a voice.’

The report also highlighted those areas of potential opportunity for pro-active work in tackling the need and challenges identified in the research, these being: the use of credit unions, money advice and pensions; training in numeracy, literacy and core skills; greater analysis and understanding of migrant workers; building upgrades and small harbour infrastructure; better health outreach; business development support; better workforce recruitment and retention, and the use of animateurs to help fishermen reach their full potential.

Barry Bryant, chair of the Forum and Director General of Seafarers UK, commented: ‘This work is timely in shining a light on a little understood community of resilient and resourceful fishermen who have often missed out on “one size fits all” social and economic interventions. The aim is that this research will provide an agenda for future action, and we hope that by fishermen, charities, support bodies and Government working together, we can make a significant and sustainable impact at this time of change for the UK fishing community that is such an important and financially viable part of our Island Nation.’

UK fishing sector facts highlighted in the report:

• Fishing and fish processing employ 22,000 people within the UK total of 28.5 million jobs
• The overall impact of the UK fishing sector is worth £1.14 billion
• In 2015 around 12,000 people were directly employed in fishing (in 1987 the figure was approaching 25,000)
• Over 20% of all those working directly as fishermen are non-EU workers
• 12,000 fishing jobs support at least a further 4,000 jobs in the wider economy, as well as their own extended families
• £552 million value of landings contributes that amount again in wider added value; making the overall impact of the UK fishing sector worth £1.14 billion.
• Speakers and panellists at ‘Fishing Forum 2018’:

• Ivan Annibal, Managing Director, Rose Regeneration
• Griffin Carpenter, Senior Researcher, New Economics Foundation
• Hazel Curtis, Chief Economist, Seafish
• Dave Cuthbert, Co-Chairman, NUTFA (New Under 10m Fishermen’s Association)
• David Dickins, Chief Executive, Fishermen’s Mission
• Robert Greenwood, Safety Officer, National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations
• Andrew Pascoe, Fisherman (over 10 metres)
• Jerry Percy, Executive Director, LIFE (Low Impact Fishers of Europe) and Chairman, Coastal Producer Organisation
• Rob Poole, Rural Economist, Cornwall Rural Community Charity
• Simon Potten, Head of Safety, Training & Services, Seafish
• Chris Ranford, Fisheries Communities Animateur, Cornwall Rural Community Charity
• Dr Rachel Turner, Lecturer in Environmental Social Science, Exeter University
• Lysanne Wilson, Health Development Officer, Seafarers Hospital Society.

The interim ‘Fishing for a Future’ report is available to download at: http://bit.ly/2DbfdYj. The final report, due to be published in late Spring, will be informed by both the Forum’s discussions and any additional feedback on the interim findings from the full spectrum of the fishing community.

Feedback and input on the interim research is invited, by email to fishingforum@seafarers.uk, phone 020 7932 5965, or write to Fishing Forum, Seafarers UK, 8 Hatherley Street, London, SW1P 2QT.

2018 Fisheries Council TACs and cuts in full for the SW

This years #agrifish Council latest updates:

After #AGRIFISH Council @KarmenuVella: thanks to agreement on fishing opportunities 2/3 of fish in #Atlantic & #NorthSea will be subject to sustainable catch limits next year

From the @CFPO:

Fisheries Council over SW quotas: Cod up 9%, Haddock cut 11%. Pollack, Saithe, Ling rollover of quotas. Monk rollover, Megrim cut 10%, Hake cut 7%. Ray up 15%.

and from the SWFPO's Jim Portus - "So it’s all over. Not much good news replacing the poor outlook of commission proposals."

Cod 7ek plus 9%
Megrim 7 minus 10%
Angler (Monk) 7 rollover
Haddock 7bk minus 11%
Whiting 7bk minus 19%
S&R 4 plus 20%
S&R 7d plus 20%
7Ek S&R plus 15%
Sole 7d plus 25%
Bass 2 bycatch down to 1%

The good ship Brexit is now 'underway' but not necessarily 'making' way

Underway or Making way?

The word 'underway' means a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground. Freed from any of those encumbrances the vessel is 'making way'

With the UK given the green light to negotiate the terms of today's Brexit deal, CFPO chairman, Paul Trebilcock reminds us why so many UK fishermen voted to support Brexit in the first place:

 ”The fishing industry should be seen as the litmus test of a successful Brexit. The UK fishing industry was badly let down by politicians in 1973. Entry conditions to the EEC (EU as was) included the principal of equal access to a common resource*. This denied us all the benefits that naturally flow from being an independent coastal state. We look forward to a new era of sustainable prosperity based on that altered status”

*Thanks largely to Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister in 1973 who traded those fishing rights away in return for non-fishing trade advantages with Europe. 

Many fishermen wanted out of the EU in order to 'take back control' of their waters.

Though, as many are pointing out thew wording of the agreement is already ringing alarm bells in fishing circles given, as many tweeted the contents of one crucial phrase:

I'm just waiting for Brexiters to entirely absorb the sentence “in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with the rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union".

Not a solution that Mick Mahon - long-time leave campainger - would be happy with.

Time and time again politicians, in particular Michael Gove, have promised to "take back control" - and fishermen, among many others, will look to hold him to his word.

Perhaps best summed up by the latest campaign bus...

Paul Trebilcock shortly heads off to Brussels ahead of this year's Fisheries Council meeting to settle the quotas for next year based on scientific advice from ICES and others - should prove interesting!

Radio 4's PM programme went to Grimsby fish market to sound out the feelings ahead of the decision taken over night.

Hot off the meeting table - 2017 EU Fisheries Council quota allowances.

The EU has agreed to hike sustainable quotas for cod in the North Sea and haddock and sole in the Western Channel.  Fisheries minister and Camborne and Redruth MP George Eustice insists the government will keep pushing, after Brexit.  The increases for some valuable species were agreed at the December EU Fisheries Council.

Here is the breakdown:
North Sea: Cod +16.5%, 
Whiting +17%, 
Anglerfish + 20%
Saithe +53%

Irish Sea: 
Haddock +25% 
Nephrops (Langoustines) +8.6%

Western Channel: 
Haddock +7%
Sole +20%

Area VII in detail for the benefit of SW fishermen courtesy of Jim Portus:


Herring 7ef (west Channel) we were expecting rollover that was secured.
Cod 7ek (Celtic Sea) the 67% cut proposed was limited to 38% cut.

Megrim 7 (Celtic Sea) the proposed 28% cut was limited to 25% cut. This is very unwelcome for Newlyn.

Anglerfish 7 (Celtic Sea) was to be cut by 12% and a rollover was achieved. That is good news for all SW ports.

Haddock 7bk (Celtic Sea) was increased by the expected 7%, giving a welcome extra 49 tonnes for the UK fleet. 

Hake 7 (Celtic Sea) was increased by the expected 9%. This stock is fished at sustainable rates and has MSC Accreditation for the Newlyn fleet of netters.

Plaice 7de (Channel stock) has been cut by the expected 19.5%. This follows 100% increase a year ago and is based on poorly understood science advice. 

Plaice 7fg (Bristol Channel) has been cut by 3.5% without good explanation. 

Pollock 7 (Celtic Sea) was to be cut by 26%, but that cut was limited to 10%.

Sole 7d (eastern Channel) was to be cut by 31%, but that cut was limited to 15%.

Sole 7e (western Channel) was increased by the expected 20%. This stock is harvested sustainably and the welcome extra quota should deliver £1Million to Brixham & SW fleet of beam trawlers. 

Sole 7fg (Bristol Channel) was unexpectedly increased by 8%, giving a welcome boost to Newlyn. 

Skates and rays quotas rise by 5%, except in the east Channel where the increase is 10%

Whiting 7ek (Celtic Sea) was increased by 10%. 

Sadly the Minister failed to secure a rollover of the Channel Sprats quota that was cut by 20%. This is a small but significant winter fishery for Brixham inshore boats. Steps will be taken to increase scientific knowledge of this stock during 2017 in an effort to secure an in-year increase. 

Bass detail:
The controversial Bass stock was subjected to increased protective measures to secure stock recovery. 

There will be a closure of the fishery during February and March, as was the case in 2016.

Demersal trawlers and seiners will then have a 3% by-catch, with a 400Kgs monthly limit.

Fixed-Gill-Netters will have a 250Kgs monthly limit. 

Hook and Line commercial licensed fishers will be limited to 10 tonnes of Bass per year. 

Anglers will be on a 1 fish per day bag limit during the open months.
Drift netting and pair-trawling effectively is outlawed.
Where the latest scientific evidence supported it, the UK Government also lobbied against unnecessary quota cuts proposed by the European Commission, securing the same quota as last year for many species, including Cod and Sole in the Irish Sea, Anglerfish in the Celtic Sea and Whiting in West of Scotland.

Speaking after the conclusion of negotiations in Brussels, Fisheries Minister George Eustice said: "To deliver a profitable fishing industry, we must fish sustainably now and in the future. This year we were able to agree further increases in quotas on some valuable species as stocks have recovered, especially in the North Sea.

"There have been some challenges especially on stocks like Bass and Cod in the south-west where action to curtail catches has been necessary, but we have worked hard to secure an agreement striking the right balance that delivers for both our marine environment and coastal communities.

"As we prepare to leave the European Union we have an opportunity to build on progress made and improve the management of fish stocks in our waters, but we will continue to follow the principles of fishing sustainably and ending the wasteful practice of discarding fish."

Challenges remain to help reverse the long-term decline of some fish stocks, with the science showing a cut of 38% on cod was necessary in the south-west (Celtic Sea) and new fishing restrictions on commercial net fisheries targeting sea bass. This builds on action taken over the last two years.

Next year, sea bass catches by gill net fishermen will also be limited only to a by catch allowance of 250kg per month - a reduction around 80% on last year while hook and line commercial fishermen saw their allowance cut by around 23%.

Other outcomes from the negotiations included securing extra flexibility around where vessels are able to fish.  This will remove current constraints around fishing for northern shelf haddock, and provide more choice over fishing grounds, resulting in reduced costs for vessels.  Ahead of the EU Fisheries Council, fishing negotiations between the EU and Norway and EU and the Faeroe Islands wrapped-up.

Fishermen in England and Scotland benefited from the formal acceptance of early agreements with Norway on fishing opportunities in the North Sea. The UK Government secured a quota rise in North Sea cod worth over £4.3 million to the UK. That is the third successive rise in three years.  Increases were also secured for blue whiting, around £5.9m, and Atlanto-Scandian herring, worth over £1m.

Following the conclusion of the negotiations with the Faeroe Islands, fishermen will benefit from a rollover of the same catch limits as last year for species including cod, haddock and blue whiting.

Increases included:

North Sea Hake (+12%) 
Western Hake (+9%)
Sole in the North Sea (+14%)
Rockall Haddock (+45%)

Reducing cuts to a number of important fish quotas by providing sound scientific evidence to the Council:
Megrim in Western Waters (-25%)
Sole in Eastern Channel (-15%)

Maintaining 2016 quotas for a number of stocks: Megrim in the North Sea
Accepting proposals for cuts where necessary to protect stocks: Plaice (-19.5%) and Sprat (-20%) in the Channel.



Ahead of the annual meeting, the NNFO made a clear statement about the December Council and its work over the coming period before Brexit is actioned.

"The December Council remains (for the time being) an important date in the fishing calendar.  The earnings potential for next year for thousands of fishing vessels hang on the decisions made by a couple of dozen fisheries ministers cloistered in late night meetings with their officials.

The year-end negotiations do have a passing resemblance to a circus. However, what we see in December is the end point of a process which takes most of the year.

The starting point for this process can be taken as May/June, when two documents are released. The first is the publication of ICES scientific advice, containing catch options and TAC recommendations. The second is the Commission’s Communication, which spells out the broad principles that will be applied when the Commissions TAC and Quota proposal is published sometime around the beginning of November.

The NFFO’s work begins well before these documents are published, in challenging and questioning the scientific assumptions, data and methods used; and in making the case for better approaches to TAC decisions. Much of this work has been done in recent years within the advisory councils.

As the autumn approaches, the NFFO goes into a higher gear with detailed discussions on the UK’s priorities with Defra officials, and broader discussions with fisheries ministers about the approach to take to defend the UK’s interests. Making alliances with those member states whose interests are aligned with ours is an important part of the picture at this stage.

EU Norway

For those stocks jointly managed with Norway, the annual negotiations with Norway, which have just concluded, are where the critical decisions are made. An NFFO team was at both rounds, in Copenhagen and Bergen and the outcomes were as follows:

North Seas Joint Stock TACs

North Sea cod: 5% TAC increase plus 11% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 2% cut.

Saithe: 55% TAC increase plus 4.1% uplift

Haddock: 45% cut to correct the error last year’s advice and ensure fishing at FMSY. Now fully under landing obligation so TAC fixed at ICES total catch advice.

Whiting: rollover plus 17% uplift. Moves the stock towards MSY whilst avoiding the 29% cut.

North Sea Plaice: rollover plus 1.2% uplift

North sea Herring - 7% decrease due to poor recruitment

Exchanges

To EU:

Haddock (IV) - 500t

Whiting (IV) - 300t

Others - 9,500t

Anglerfish (IV) - 1,500t

Ling (IV) - 1,350

Arcto-Norwegian cod – 23,000t

Arcto-Norwegian Haddock – 1,200t

Saithe (I, II) – 2,550t

Greenland Halibut (I, II) – 50t

Others (I, II)– 350t

To Norway

Ling (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 6,500

Tusk (IV,Vb,VI,VII,IIa) – 2,923

Horse mackerel (IVb,c) – 3,550

Saithe (IV, IIIa) –250t

Saithe (VIa) - 510t

Others (IV, IIa) 5,250

Blue whiting – 110,000t

Redfish – 740t

These decisions will, in the normal course of events, just be ratified by the Council of Ministers.

Council

This year the December Council will take place in Brussels on 12th/13th December.

Ministers at this time of year often come under intense pressure from some of the more dogmatic green organisations for “departing from the scientific recommendations.” It is important therefore to understand that in the EU system, ministers have a unique and specific responsibility in setting TACs for the following year, to balance out a number of important factors. These include:

Taking into account single stock advice produced by ICES
Taking into account recent and relevant fisheries information
Balancing these with mixed fisheries considerations
Avoiding TAC decisions that will merely result in an increase in discards
Taking into account socio-economic concerns, by for example phasing reductions when these are needed
Taking into account, legal obligations, including the MSY timetable
For as long as TAC decisions are made (or ratified) by the December Council, it is important that this important balancing function is understood and recognised.

Maximum Sustainable Yield

Having the ambition to manage our fisheries so that they consistently deliver high yields is an eminently sensible policy. Ignoring biological and socio-economic realities in a blinkered race to an arbitrary MSY timetable, applied to all stocks irrespective of circumstances, makes no sense whatsoever - except perhaps to a handful of fundamentalists. As we approach the MSY deadline of 2020, the gap between aspiration and the reality inevitably becomes starker. The Commission has proposed gigantic cuts for some stocks. Channel cod with a proposed cut of 68% and Area VII megrim with a proposed cut of 28% are cases in point. At some juncture the Commission and member states will have to face the realities of a bulldozer MSY policy and adapt it to something more nuanced and workable. It the mean time ministers have a responsibility to keep things on an even keel.

Uplifts

Those fisheries and stocks brought into the landings obligation in 2017 should see their catch limits increase in line with the fish that was previously discarded. There are a number of difficulties to face:

The question of how accurate the discard estimates are. In some fisheries these will be quite accurate; in others there will be a substantial misalignment. This can only lead to problems during the quota year, intensifying the choke problem
Will the uplifts be directed to the right place? this is a political decision for each member state but will determine where in-year problems might be expected to appear
Bass

There seems to be an axiom that the more a stock is in the spotlight, the more decision-makers tend towards knee-jerk measures that sound like something that is being done but instead leave a legacy of carnage. The dead bass – a highly valuable species – discarded, that now litter the seabed, is the legacy of an EU decision last year to limit trawlers to a 1% bycatch. If the Commission’s proposal this year is followed by the Council, this problem will get worse – with absolutely minimal advantage in terms of reduced mortality. By banning gill nets from retaining bass caught in their nets, bass will be killed and discarded unnecessarily – for no conservation advantage; and at great cost to the many vessels which catch some bass. The solution lies in applying a bycatch over a longer period, say 6 months, which would even out the peaks and troughs and allow the vessel to retain a higher proportion of the bass caught.

It is frankly difficult to square the introduction of regulatory discards into the bass fishery, exactly at a time when all the rhetoric is about reducing discards across the EU.

This is not an argument against bringing bass back into a healthy conservation status: strong measures have already been put in place, including an increased minimum size and stringent catch limits. But scientists tell us that the effects of these measures, in terms of increased biomass, will take some time to work through. This is why hysterical over-reaction is best avoided.

The pressure to ban gill nets for fishing for bass is mainly coming from the recreational angling lobby, who have their own selfish reasons. Like many others, we are interested to hear how a 10 fish per month bag limit on recreational anglers could ever be enforced….

Skates and Rays

Managing skates and rays is certainly tricky. Species recognition can be poor and the TAC covers some 15 separate species. Things have been made worse in recent years by the Commission’s blunt approach to data-poor stocks, which has forced a series of year-on-year 20% reductions which has made the quota all but impossible to manage.

At the 11th hour, the Commission has circulated a paper suggesting that each individual species should have its own TAC. We are not sure that this is the right way to go. It is important to have some kind of understanding of the potential consequences before embarking on such a radical change.

Apart from anything else in is not right the member states and their fishing industries are ambushed by last minute changes – the example of small-eyed ray last year being a good example of how not to make fisheries legislation.

NFFO Team

An NFFO team will be present throughout the whole Council, using every opportunity to guide decisions to the right outcomes. Meetings have been held, written submissions have been made, priorities clarified. We are now dependent on our minister and his officials to deliver.

Our team has been selected to give cover to all NFFO interests which include:

Western waters
North Sea
Channel
Irish Sea
External Waters
Pelagic
Bass
Inshore
Leaving the EU

Longer term, the December Council will not be the fora which makes TAC decisions for the UK fleets. For the 100 or so stocks that we share with other countries new and different TAC decision making process will be required. Work is continuing within the Federation on this and the many other aspects of the UK’s departure from the EU. For the next couple of weeks however the focus will be the December Council.

Keep in the picture with the NFFO website.

NFFO Brexit report in full.

The referendum on 23rd June, which decided that UK should leave the EU, represents a seismic change for the UK fishing industry. We are taking the view that there may be risks and pitfalls associated with this monumental change of direction but overall, this is a huge opportunity to reshape the management of our fisheries to the great benefit of our fishing industry and coastal communities. The Common Fisheries Policy has taken us down many blind alleys over the years. Now a new era beckons. This will not be without its own challenges; but the very fact that the fickle and cumbersome European co-decision process will no longer be the arbiter of our fate, is tremendously liberating.

Chairman’s Report 2016
Brexit


It has been some ten weeks since the referendum and as you might expect, the Federation has been very active. Our Executive Committee met soon after the referendum on 12th July and agreed in broad outline our policy approach to the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. A working group has been established to develop detailed positions on the many aspects of fisheries policy that will be affected by Brexit. Two meetings of the group have already been held and it will continue to meet regularly for the foreseeable future. All final decisions on NFFO policy will continue to be made by the Executive Committee.

The Federation’s senior officers have already met with the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, and will be in regular contact with Defra officials for the duration of the negotiations. Today’s meeting with UK, Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, is also an important opportunity to signal fishermen’s expectations of what we want and hope to emerge from the forthcoming negotiations. We will also be meeting the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Andrea Leadsom next week. As you can see, we are heavily engaged at the highest levels.

Whilst we certainly see the future of our fisheries being based on cooperation and collaboration with those countries that we share stocks with, we also see Brexit as an opportunity to reset quota and access arrangements to address the anomalies that have persisted since the early days of the CFP.

We are currently working hard on defining our priorities for the negotiations ahead but the bottom line is our belief that the quota shares held by the UK should broadly reflect the fish resources that are located in our waters.

We know the Brexit negotiations will be complex and sometimes arduous. However, fishing has high public and political visibility and is likely to be used by many as a litmus test on which the success of Brexit success will be judged.

The outcomes of the Brexit negotiations will be affected by many, many, factors but one over which we as an industry do have direct control is the extent to which we can speak with a single, clear, credible and coherent voice.

Opportunities

Being released from the strictures of the Common Fisheries Policy should afford a great many opportunities to reshape the rules under which we as an industry operate. Some examples could be:

⦁ To secure an exclusive 12 mile zone for our coastal fishermen
⦁ To reset our national quota shares to more fairly reflect the fish caught in our waters
⦁ To escape from the blunt control of Brussels over the detail of fisheries management
⦁ To re-shape our domestic fisheries to our own priorities
⦁ To design and implement our own pathway to stable, profitable and sustainable fisheries

There is much to play for and work is well under way.

Domestic Policy

Modernising inshore management within the protection of an exclusive 12 mile zone will provide a range of opportunities to do things better. The EU requirement for vessels above 10 metres to carry logbooks was built on by our own authorities and this ultimately created an artificial boundary that has skewed both fleet development and fishermen’s behaviours. Outside the rigidity and conformity of the CFP it may be possible to radically change inshore fisheries management for the better. The fundamental laws of fisheries won’t change: there needs to be a balance between fishing capacity and available resources if anything is to work. But for instance, it is worth exploring whether there are parts of the under-10 fleet whose impact is so slight that they could be treated as de minimis and be treated accordingly in terms of quota exemptions and much lighter restrictions.

Producer organisations – collectives of fishermen for quota management and marketing purposes - have been one of the great success stories of the last 20 years, developing sophisticated ways to obtain quota to keep their members fishing and marketing their catch. How to ensure that POs continue to perform these valuable services in the changed circumstances that Brexit will bring, is an important area of work.

Prior to the referendum, the Federation was already engaged with Defra and the MMO in defining a coherent strategy for the future of English fisheries, taking into account all their diversity and complexity. This work will continue but will take place within a dramatically altered regulatory landscape.

What will a discard ban tailored to the requirements of the UK look like? We already know that the EU landing obligation has the capacity to cause serious chokes in mixed fisheries. UK ministers have already signalled their intention to retain a discard ban post Brexit but what form will it take given that post Brexit there will be no requirement to slavishly follow EU legislation in this area? This is another area in which the NFFO will be concentrating its efforts.

Stocks

The failures of the CFP have been well documented over the years, not least in the Commission’s own Green Papers that preceded each of the reforms in 2003 and 2013. Wrong turnings, unintended consequences and a huge gulf between aspiration and delivery have been the hallmarks of a top-down, over-centralised system. These have been recognised and recorded. In understanding the limitations and shortfalls of the CFP, however, it is important, however, not to ignore what has been achieved.

Despite the wrong turnings and perverse outcomes, right across the North East Atlantic and across all of the main species groups, the exploitation rate has been brought within safe levels; not only this, but the official scientific view is that our fisheries are well on track to deliver high long term yields. It has been a painful journey getting to this point and it is important that whatever reformulated management arrangements arrive as a result of Brexit that we do not lose the progress that has been made.

In the meantime….

EU law and the CFP will apply to the UK fishing industry up to the point at which the UK exits the EU. The EU landings obligation will continue to be rolled out, adding new species and fisheries each year. A new Technical Conservation Regulation is in the pipeline, as are multi-annual management plans for the North Sea. Further measures on seabass may be in the pipeline and rolling out further marine protected areas. All these will require attention because they affect our members’ livelihoods in the here and now; but also because elements of them may find their way into UK legislation post-Brexit. The Federation cannot afford to take its eye off the ball on these short-term issues.

The EU’s approach to the concept of stock policies is a good example. There is no reason why fishermen would object to policies which bring high yields and high quotas. It has only been when the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield has been misused and applied as dogma rather than as a broad and flexible aspiration, that resistance within the industry has built. This is an immediate issue as the rigid and inflexible MSY timetable, if accepted, will force drastic cuts in many quotas for next year despite a steady increase in biomasses across the board.

Similarly with the precautionary approach: all can agree that it is not wise to until every piece of evidence is in place before taking action; but the repeated cuts in quota for data-poor stocks that have caused serious socio-economic harm in, for example the skates and rays fisheries. The same is true of zero TACs and unrealistic bycatch limits for spurdog and bass. This has been the opposite of the progressive and flexible fisheries management that we require and it requires the Federation’s active intervention both now and in relation to the management of our fisheries beyond Brexit.

Landing Obligation

Until Brexit, the EU landing obligation represented the biggest change to the CFP since the Policy was established. For that reason, the NFFO has spent an enormous amount of time trying to make its implementation workable. Dealing with the issue of potential chokes in mixed fisheries has been at the forefront of our concerns, and some important progress has been made, with more to be done. Brexit will mean that after the UK has left the European Union, the EU landing obligation will no longer apply to UK fishing vessels or to UK waters. However, the signs are that the UK will want to retain its own variant of the discard ban and there is obviously another job of work to be done, jointly with officials in defining exactly what that will mean in practice.

Shellfish

Shellfish is a policy area that has been relatively lightly touched by the CFP. Nevertheless, it has suffered from inertia and lack of direction despite its huge contribution to the economic wellbeing of the industry. At the request of the NFFO, Defra is now in the process of establishing a Shellfish Strategy Group that will hopefully provide this vital sector with a sense of direction, in the face of challenges such as the MSY objective and increasing reliance on formal stock surveys. A data subgroup has already met to identify gaps in our knowledge on shellfish and to work with scientists and shell-fishermen to address them.

Small-Scale Fisheries

As someone who operates a vessel at the smaller end of the spectrum, I am acutely aware of the pressures, concerns and aspirations of the small-scale sector. I was proud of the work done by the Federation a couple of years ago to successfully fight of the Commission’s proposal to ban small-scale drift nets because of enforcement problems in Italy! The NFFO swung into action and the ban has been on the back burner ever since – leaving our sustainable small-scale fisheries to continue unmolested. This example told us much. It told us that despite the CFP reforms, a capricious and ill-informed Commissioner could potentially jeopardise a legitimate fishing activity on a whim. It told us that, whatever the issue, the NFFO would be found in the thick of the action, taking the lead and coordinating opposition to stupid and unfair policies. It also told us that well-marshalled rational arguments and a strong evidence-base could turn the political tide against the Commission.

It was an issue facing the small scale drift nets then; it could be issues affecting larger vessels tomorrow: The NFFO was created to fight for fishermen, wherever on the coast they are based; whatever fishing method they use and whatever the size of their vessel. The Federation’s work on shellfish policy, on drift nets, on salmon and on marine protected areas have all been directly focused on protecting the livelihoods of small scale fishermen. Fleet diversity is one of our industry’s great strengths and all parts of it are valuable.

Industry Reputation

Have you noticed that there are fewer media scare stories about fishing? There is still the odd ignorant comment made about depleted fish stocks that defies all the scientific evidence and still issues that have been taken out of context. But the Tsunami of distortions and manufactured crises has definitely waned and I think that it is fair to attribute this at least partly, to the work of the Federation and its partnership with communications specialists Acceleris. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall hasn’t been seen on the fishing scene since he and his Fish Campaign were taken apart by the NFFO on Newsnight. That wouldn’t have happened without a great deal of legwork by the NFFO/Acceleris team in securing the interest of sympathetic journalists to presenting the other side of the story.

There will always be the noisy 5%, those who from obsession, or because they are paid by charitable trusts. They will continue to cry wolf because they are paid to but I think that the NFFO can take some credit for bringing most of the mainstream media back to portraying the fishing industry as it should be: hard working and committed individuals doing a difficult job in sometimes arduous circumstances.

Unregistered Fishing

Following an NFFO initiative, the MMO launched a campaign earlier this year to address the growing problem of fishing for profit from unlicensed vessels. The campaign is initially centred on the shops, pubs, restaurants and hotels which buy fish caught in unlicensed vessels and sold through the back door. Letting these retail outlets know that this is not a victimless crime is the first step. Targeted enforcement with high visibility to name and shame the culprits, will follow if the practice continues.

Safety and Training

With two important pieces of legislation looming on the horizon, the Work in Fishing Convention and the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping in fisheries, it has been essential for us to ensure that these legislative measures are practical and achieve their intended improvements to safety and training.

The Federation has worked closely with a commercial company to design and develop a man over board dummy that is easy to use, simple to store and cheap to purchase. This initiative was started in response to a recommendation from the Marine accident Investigation Branch and shows how the NFFO are innovative and committed to improving safety for all fishermen.

Crew welfare has become a major concern for many owners and whilst the press are desperately pointing the finger at the fishing industry with little validation, we have sought to improve our understanding of the issues faced and solutions to the welfare issues our members are facing. Collaborating with the leading charity Human Right at Sea, we have established a strong understanding of the social and ethical issues in fisheries around the world and are working with them to help our members and fellow fishermen to be aware of the technical issues and be leaders for fishermen around the world.

Marine Protected Areas

The Federation has been working hard to ensure fisheries management measures within MPAs are introduced only when informed by proper levels of evidence. This work included the completion of a major piece of research to measure the nature of fishing seabed impacts according to individual gear components and taking into account the effects of natural disturbance. In the case of new potential MPA proposals for harbour porpoise and other highly mobile species, the Federation has pressed the case firmly with government that they are only designated with proper justification. Overall, the Federation has done much to swing the government away from a tick-box exercise approach towards a process based on evidence.

Conclusion

We live in interesting times. There will be challenges ahead. This is fishing: there are always challenges.

But there are opportunities too and what we make of those opportunities will be largely up to us. We are an extraordinarily diverse industry, with small-boats fishing from the beach up to very large vessels fishing in distant waters. The NFFO exists to give all of those fishermen and vessel owners a voice where it counts: where the decisions affecting our futures are decided.

The locus where those decisions are made may now change but our responsibility in delivering the industry’s view has not.

The clarity of that message that we deliver will help to secure our aims and it is natural and understandable that our political masters will look to the only body that even attempts to speak on behalf of the whole industry – the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations – our name speaks of our purpose, our aim and who we are.

Gearing Up For Change: A Collaborative Approach for a Responsive Fishery

Gearing Up For Change is a film which will be publicly launched at a meeting in the European Parliament this morning, where David Stevens, skipper of the Crystal Sea II, the largest trawler left working from Newlyn will present to a round-table of policy and industry, chaired by Alain Cadec.

The film was designed to be an opportunity for David to talk in a genuinely in-depth way about how he has found the CQT process, how he has used his own knowledge to innovate within his fishery, and the challenges he sees for fishers under the demersal landing obligation.

The idea is to present a fisherman who has approached these genuine challenges with positivity and innovation, but not to ignore his blunt warnings about how policy/management needs to adapt to ensure a sustainable, profitable future for the industry under the constraints of the LO.

The film was made by Mindfully Wired Communications, specialists to the fishing industry for the European Defence Fund  and shown during a gathering at the European Parliament. “Gearing Up for Change: A Collaborative Approach for a Responsive Fishery” features David Stevens, skipper of the Crystal Sea II (a family-owned vessel that he runs with his brother Alec). The film highlights the innovative ways Stevens and other fishermen are working to meet the European Union’s landing obligation as set forth in the Common Fisheries Policy.

The round table event of policy makers, industry and NGOs was hosted by the European Parliament Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development in collaboration with Environmental Defense Fund and chaired by Alain Cadec MEP. The discussion focused on the challenges facing the industry in implementing the landing obligation, with specific attention paid to the economic costs of greater selectivity, and the need for greater technical adaptability and flexibility to meet the new requirements, combined with more flexibility and security needed in quota allocation. Many participants highlighted the need for more time and space to enable innovation and liberate the inherent knowledge of the industry to complement the process. Stevens commented:

“The time lag in the scientific process is a huge challenge in fisheries management – especially for erratic species like haddock. We need to be coming forward with the data so [policy makers] can see where the changes need to be made.”

During the discussion, David Stevens explained why he believes greater collaboration will be vital to unlock the gear adaptability, real-time data, and flexible quota management needed to underpin a successful ‘discard ban.’ Developing innovative fishing techniques as part of a ‘Catch Quota Trial’ over the last three years, he has significantly reduced his discards through fully documenting his catch and trialling gear modifications sparked by what he witnessed first-hand on the water. He was keen to highlight that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that significant social and economic challenges remain.

“There are fishermen across Europe who are rising to the challenge the landing obligation raises. They believe, as do we, that a mix of gear technology and quota management solutions can together provide the selectivity, security and adaptability fishermen need in their business to ensure sustainable and prosperous fisheries,” commented Melanie Siggs, Senior Director, Environmental Defense Fund, EU Oceans programme. “We are delighted to have the opportunity to help showcase those fishermen when we can, and ensure policy makers have the benefit of their knowledge”.

The film – shown publicly for the first time at the event – is an in-depth exploration, from Stevens’ perspective, on his participation in the UK Catch Quota Trial (CQT). Run by fisheries agency the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), and supported by the scientific agency the Centre for Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas), the CQT provided quota incentives for fishermen willing to operate under the conditions of the landing obligation, and fully document their catches. Under the CQT, he was able to reduce the discards in his fishery to less than 2%, and reduced the catch of juvenile haddock – his primary ‘choke species’ – by nearly 90%.

As a part of the trial, Stevens used information from cameras on board to adapt his gear to changing conditions in his Celtic Sea fishing grounds – and record the success of different modifications tested. Acknowledging that not everyone is in favour of cameras, he notes that they can create significant trust in the system with just one or two vessels operating with cameras within the fleet.

“We need to see the cameras as more than just an enforcement tool, we need to see them as a scientific tool. I think we’ve only scratched the surface of what they can achieve,” Stevens said, to the group of MEPs, civil servants, industry and NGO representatives present.

“The work the Crystal Sea II has undertaken not only shows what the industry can achieve with incentive-led initiatives but also clearly demonstrates the challenges the landing obligation poses for the fishing industry.”

The flexibility provided by quota incentives under the CQT gave the security the Crystal Sea II needed in order to participate in the trial. In his discussion of the future of fishing, David reflected on the value greater security and longer-term quota management could add to his business:

“What the industry needs is greater security about their quota, so we can build longer-term plans combined with the ability to adapt gear according to the conditions, so as to maximize selectivity. Technical regulations – even those which have been a success in my fishery – won’t work as a ‘one-size fits all.’”